Last Wednesday, during a Sub-Board I, Inc., board of directors meeting, the Undergraduate Student Association announced its consideration of pulling out of Sub-Board I. The announcement came after SA failed to attain one of the three annually elected seats for officers to preside over the corporation. While it is understandable that SA is upset over this matter, their consideration of leaving Sub-Board will only hurt the constituents they seek to protect.
According to the Sub-Board Web site, the seven student governments, whose members make up the 14 seats on the board, own Sub-Board. SA holds 6 seats on the Board - a high number for a single member association, considering that the Graduate Student Association holds 3 chairs while the remaining five student governments -Millard Fillmore College SA, Medical Polity, Dental SA, Graduate Management Association and Student Bar Association - occupy one seat each. However, since the three presiding officers - the president, vice president and treasurer - hold the majority of power within SBI, SA's failure to attain one of those seats greatly hinders its authority over the decisions of the corporation.
Chances are that Sub-Board will fold if SA decides to pull out, because SA provides 80 percent of the corporation's funds. There is no way for the remaining organizations to support the corporation in its current capacity without SA's money. This will ultimately hurt the student body, because SBI-funded activities and benefits such as the pharmacy and medical insurance will either be handed over to the university or cut altogether.
SA president-elect George Pape said, "The only thing that SA wants is to make sure that its students are fairly represented." SA contributes approximately $600,000 to Sub-Board annually, and it is understandable that Pape wants more power on the board of directors.
However, the way Pape is handling the situation makes it seem that SA is using strong-arm tactics to change Sub-Board's bylaws so SA gains more power. SA's complaint is not new; a year ago, when GSA threatened to pull out of the corporation, SA hinted at discontent with the makeup of the board. If the government was truly so upset at the status quo, why were no negotiations taken up to get the bylaws changed this year? While it is necessary to have SA in a position of power to voice the views of the undergraduate population, no member of a collective group should be able to use force to guide the whole - that contradicts the very idea of having a board of directors from the different student governments.
No one student government should have a majority vote on the board; such a situation would make it very easy for other students' interests to be left behind in favor of the most powerful government's interests. If the bylaws are to be changed, this problem could be avoided by balancing the number of seats on the board of directors to create equality between SA and the various graduate associations. Increasing the number of total seats to 16 and giving SA two additional chairs to equal the graduate associations' eight would both allow SA greater representation for the money it contributes and maintain a system of checks and balances.
The board of directors of Sub-Board I should work collectively instead of in separate factions to ensure the best service for the students they represent, rather than worrying about which group holds the most power. SBI is already running relatively smoothly, and SA should compromise with SBI to reach a sensible agreement and cease this tug-of-war. Doing so can only benefit Sub-Board I and the entire student body.
Photo: Meredith Forrest Kulwicki
